NORFLEET v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 10-cv-626-JPG. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150409b52
Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Marc Norfleet's objection (Doc. 108) to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier's March 25, 2015, order (Doc. 105) denying as moot Norfleet's motion for a copy of a document in the Court's file and second law library inquiry (Doc. 101). A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on nondispositive issues should modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or cont
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Marc Norfleet's objection (Doc. 108) to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier's March 25, 2015, order (Doc. 105) denying as moot Norfleet's motion for a copy of a document in the Court's file and second law library inquiry (Doc. 101). A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on nondispositive issues should modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contr..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Marc Norfleet's objection (Doc. 108) to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier's March 25, 2015, order (Doc. 105) denying as moot Norfleet's motion for a copy of a document in the Court's file and second law library inquiry (Doc. 101).
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on nondispositive issues should modify or set aside that decision if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court may also sua sponte reconsider any matter determined by a magistrate judge. L.R. 73.1(a); Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Frazier's order as well as Norfleet's underlying motion and finds the order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Further, the Court declines to reconsider the order. For these reasons, the Court:
• AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Frazier's March 25, 2015, order denying Norfleet's motion for a copy of a document in the Court's file and second law library inquiry (Doc. 101); and
• OVERRULES Norfleet's objection (Doc. 108).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
